-
Ein Beitrag aus dem Internet-Diskussionsforum "Search" -
At
10:42 AM 21/4/97, Gordezky/Iosue wrote:
>The question I have is this: what is our role as conference facilitators
>in raising or not raising the issues that people speak to us about?
>There were a number of times before day three when I wanted to make
the
>observation to the conference that people were saying stuff to me
but
>not to the whole group, then asking for their reaction. I didn't
>because my sense has been that I am there not to raise issues but
for
>people to do the best they can with what they've got and with what
they
>are willing to take on. I'd be interested in comments.
This is a question almost as old as faciliation itself; and needs to
be raised from time to time. It is very very easy for facilitators to
be self righteous about this, and the way I stopped myself being so
(at least I hope), was to remember the times that I was in the participant's
shoes. How did I feel about bringing up difficult issues ? Did I have
the "fight/flight" reaction when the facilitator placed this
huge responsibilty on the meeting to discuss the undiscussible ? Even
so, I have created and fallen into just about every trap you can think
of here.
Here is what I tend to do these days (but things change all the time).
Firstly, I discuss with the person whether they know other people who
are feeling the same way. Perhaps the person could discuss this with
them. This can at times avoid the problem of one person claiming that
they speak for a range of people, when they are essentially articulating
a unique view.
Secondly, I ask them to forget the particular issue and consider what
in general terms would need to be done to make this "undiscussible"
issue, discussible. I then get them to consider what the group could
do about this. The benefits of this is that if there is a group dynamic
or other block, removing it could open up opportunities for other "undiscussible"issues
to be raised
Finally, when this has been done, I say that I will not go into bat
for them, but open up a safe opportunity for them or others to raise
the matter. What I often do in this circumstance is to mention in plenery
session that it might be an idea to check-in about how the process is
working (since improvements can always be made) and whether any changes
need to be made. I ask people to get out a piece of paper and write
down all the aspects of the process which are working well and those
which are not. I assure them that this information is private to them,
unless they wish to make it public. I then ask for contributions from
the floor and write up them up (one column of "working" and
one column of "not working"). What normally happens is that
someone identifies a tentative negative, someone else then adds something
slightly stronger, and more often than not after about five minutes
the person who came to me feels able to raise their point. What I often
do next (so that the process doesn't end in a doom and gloom breastbeating
session), is to call for ways in which the group can resolve some of
the negatives, but on condition that it improves (or doesn't reduce)
the positives.
Excellent question.
BOB WILLIAMS
bobwill@actrix.gen.nz